Archive for September 3rd, 2012

Last year, I held an unofficial contest to see whether the United Kingdom or the United States had the dumbest bureaucrats and/or most absurd examples of political correctness.

Since that time, I’ve posted additional examples of gross government stupidity from both sides of the Atlantic. From the United Kingdom, we have these gems.

But American officials have been busy as well, with impressive displays of incompetence and stupidity.

Now it’s time to revisit this contest. The United Kingdom has decided to arrest a man for the horrific crime of shooting some thugs that broke into his home. Here are some details from a column in the Telegraph.

A farm tenant and his wife who were arrested after two suspected burglars were shot at their isolated home had been the victims of a number of robberies. …The man is believed to have grabbed a legally owned gun after they were disturbed by the break-in early yesterday. He is understood to have fired at the intruders who then fled the isolated house at Melton Mowbray, Leics, before calling the police. …The arrested man’s mother said: “This is not the first time they have been broken into. “They have been robbed three or four times. One of them was quite nasty. …the businessman and his wife were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm. Four men, understood to be the suspected burglars, were also arrested.

“Arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm”? Isn’t that the point when confronting criminals?!?

Though I guess we should be happy that the burglars also were arrested. And given the country’s oppressive gun control laws, I’m pleasantly surprised that there are still a few legal guns in the United Kingdom.

But that’s about the only silver lining I can find to this dark cloud.

Moreover, it turns out that the U.K. has a track record of persecuting the innocent. The column mentions outrageous examples.

The case will reignite the debate over a householder’s right to defend his property, which began in the late 1990s after the farmer Tony Martin shot two burglars at his remote Norfolk home. In 1999, Martin fired at Brendan Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras, 16, after they broke into the house in Emneth Hungate. Three shots were fired, Barras was hit in the back and despite escaping through a window died moments later. Martin was convicted of murder and jailed for life, which was reduced on appeal to manslaughter and five years’ jail. In 2009, the millionaire businessman Munir Hussain fought back with a metal pole and a cricket bat against a knife-wielding burglar who tied up his family at their home in Buckinghamshire. Hussain was jailed for two and a half years, despite his attacker being spared prison. Appeal judges reduced the sentence to a year’s jail, suspended. The case prompted David Cameron to announce that home owners and shopkeepers would have the right to protect themselves against burglars and robbers.

I’m glad to see, by the way, that David Cameron is at least saying supportive things about people having the right to self defense. I’ve hammered Cameron for undermining the U.K.’s system of personal retirement accounts, giving taxpayer money to statist environmental groupsincreasing the capital gains taxincreasing the burden of government spending, and whining that it is wrong for people to minimize their tax burdens.

But I also believe in giving credit where it’s due, so I’m glad he wants to change the law. I hope that includes the right to shoot burglars.

That would put the U.K. ahead of Illinois, though that’s a very low bar to clear.

Read Full Post »

The unemployment rate has been stuck above 8 percent ever since Obama pushed through his ill-fated stimulus scheme to increase the burden of government spending.

This high level of joblessness presumably reduces Obama’s chances of getting reelected, so you would think that Democrats would be very leery of proposals that increase the cost of job creation.

Yet they’ve relentlessly pushed to subsidize unemployment, even though Paul Krugman and Larry Summers have acknowledged that unemployment insurance reduces the incentive to find a job.

Now there’s talk of pushing for a higher minimum wage. Here are some details from a report in The Hill.

Advocates pushing for a minimum wage increase are looking to turn it into an election-year issue as the campaign season heats up this fall. Such a hike is expected to be included in the Democrats’ 2012 platform — which will be presented to delegates at the party’s convention in Charlotte, N.C., next week — a member of the drafting committee told The Hill. …In the eyes of labor unions, consumer advocates and liberal Democrats, the strategy is a no-brainer in an election season that’s featured the birth of the Occupy Wall St. movement, questions about Mitt Romney’s financial practices and a highly partisan debate over which class of workers deserve an extended tax break next year. …A minimum wage hike is not without political risks, however, as Republicans and business groups are warning that such a move would burden small businesses amid an employment crisis when Congress is urging them to hire.

Regarding the last sentence in the excerpt, I agree that a minimum wage hike entails risk, but I fear those risks are to the economy rather than to politicians. Much to my dismay, a majority of voters generally support this misguided policy.

In my attempts to educate these misguided souls, I try to figure out why they favor certain policies. In the case of the minimum wage, this is my rough-draft list of why some people support this perverse form of government intervention.

1. They understand low-income people will suffer if the minimum wage is increased, but that is acceptable collateral damage in the quest for political power.

2. They understand low-income people will suffer in the short run, but they rationalize this harm because there will be more redistribution in the long run if they obtain political power.

3. They understand low-income people will suffer, but that is an acceptable price to pay since it means unions will have more negotiating leverage once low-income workers are priced out of the market.

4. They think low-income people will benefit because the economy is a fixed pie and a mandate to pay more to low-income workers will merely result in less income for the rich.

5. They think low-income people will benefit because of the magic of Keynesian economics – i.e., beneficiaries will have more income, which will then get spent, thus stimulating the economy.

6. They are impervious to evidence and instead are motivated solely by a sense that there should be a minimum income in a “fair” and “compassionate” society.

It’s quite possible, of course, for someone to support higher minimum wages for more than just one reason. Indeed, I suspect  supporters of the minimum wage can be divided into two groups. The politicians and union bosses tend to believe in higher minimum wages for reasons 1, 2, and 3, while ordinary people are likely to support intervention for reasons 4, 5, and 6.

But regardless of what they believe, they’re wrong. This Cato study has all the evidence you could possibly want. But if you don’t have time to read the paper, this video is well worth a few minutes of your time.

Walter Williams also has weighed in on this issue, noting specifically the negative impact of higher minimum wages on minorities.

Sadly, this is one of those issues where it might not make a difference which party wins in November. Romney already has said he favors not only an increase in the minimum wage, but also indexing, which means automatic increases in the future.

P.S. Here’s a very good cartoon showing the impact of raising the minimum wage.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: